Arghhhhh ! Its Not Origional

austrokiwi I agree with you from the perspective of the specialist. It is a technical point you are making. I was approaching the subject from more of a marketing/eBay perspective concerned more with fraud than terminology.

The distinction you are pointing out in this case is something that ebay would not take action on.

I get into the same position with the terms counterfeit or forgery. In an ebay sense they are the same, but in a technical sense they are different.

There is a technically right and wrong answer for just about every situation and sometimes they may appear to contradict. I was trying to indicate that distinctions sometimes have to be tailored to the audience or situation.

austrokiwi The last line of my statement is actually supported I believe by the spirit of the final clause of the ANA statement.




That statement recognizes an essentially variable standard. I also believe the quote refers rather specifically to items that fall under the Hobby Protection Act. The MTT restrikes have never been classed along with the "restrikes" that require marking because in general it is presumed that numismatists generally accept the status of the MTT.

The MTT is one exception to the "marking regulation" that has tacit recognition even by ebay.

Interpretation of the ANA standard in the way you seem to want to, would require marking ALL but 20 MTTs with the word COPY. No one has ever proposed that step.

The description of the auction in question clearly refers to the coin as an example of the Hafner 28. It also provides the mint and a date range beginning in 1789. It is referred to precisely as an "Original Strike (1789-1792)." Note specifically that this is within the same clause starting and ending with periods. The date 1789 is the earliest possible production date clearly specified. This date does not match the date shown on the coin. The only conclusion is therefore .... "restrike". Under the ANA clause there is therefore NO misrepresentation. The coin is in fact "genuine" but it is also not a strike from 1780 - it is an "original Strike from 1789-1792" - a restrike.

That may sound like hair splitting but I always strive to balance the seller's intent and degree of responsibility in making the description with a requirement that the buyer also perform appropriate due diligence to protect his financial interests in reading and interpreting what is written.

To be fair both sides must be responsible to do their own jobs. This is especially critical on ebay where a neutral venue is the prime objective.

austrokiwi: I understand your position, however, I do feel obligated to explain my position a little further in an effort to clarify my belief that the coin posted by coinworldtv is a properly described precise definition of the coin being sold for the purposes of ebay.

You say:




I would definitely say you are right that it is an apparent Oxymoron - however, I what I intended to point out was more or less a form of paradoxical expression. As a paradox what I was saying seems to be contradictory to the truth on the surface but it contains an implied truth which is clearly different. It is an invitation to discussion of the topic.

The surface truth which you are stating could be summed up as; "ONLY coins struck during the calendar year 1780 can be considered to be original." That is a simple and utterly true statement.

However, the implied truth I am trying to demonstrate is that many of the earliest of the MTT restrikes are viewed by the average coin collector as "examples of genuine or original" versions of the MTT. This is done to place those very early restrikes in category that is very clearly distinct from the modern restrikes (post 1853). I would note for the record that in the USA today (the home ground of both ebay and the ANA) that no where near all professional coin dealers are even aware that there is a significant difference in MTTs. I know here in North Carolina I have had to explain it to dealers on many occasions. It happens at every show. The average coin collector knows less.

These collectors are the target group of buyers on ebay and they also constitute the bulk of the US collecting public which supports the ANA.

Now a slightly more sophisticated collector will understand that there are many varieties within each of several possible subdivisions of MTTs. That second tier collector or dealer may own a copy of Hafner's book or have access to a MTT website.

A skilled profession numismatist or a very well schooled expert on the topic of MTTs will approach the subject with exacting precision. That is the level of precision you are addressing. But that level of precision is not actually required on a venue like ebay and it is NOT required by the ANA rules.

Within your quote above you agree that the date of production noted by the seller was correct. The variety of the coin being sold was also given by Hafner number. That I would point out is a more precise definition of what the coin actually is than the words "original" or "genuine" would be.

If a buyer reads that definition he is forewarned that no claim exists for an actual striking date of 1780. A buyer MUST PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE in every case before bidding on ebay.

You also allude to a little-known fact, that there is no official consensus of agreement on which precise MTT dies were used in calendar year 1780 nor when those dies were actually retired from service. Unlike today, coining dies often remained in use past the end of the calendar year.

To muddy the waters further - even the date of the end of the year can be expressed in different forms because the Gregorian Calendar we now use to date historic events did not exist and the old style Julian dates varied by country.

So, without some checking on my part, as to which system Austria used at time of the death of Maria Theresa, I would say that precision in dating is actually imprecise - creating a true oxymoron as it applies to which 1780 dated coins were really struck in 1780. Was it the coins that were struck during the Austrian version of the Julian calendar year 1780 or some other time period?

We have now achieved a level of imprecise-precision. That is the true oxymoron here.

Just to be 100% positive, in my personal opinion, the description as written is adequate under the rules of ebay and the ANA.

austrokiwi Thank you for confirming that at least some of the MTT dies were destroyed at the date Maria's death - I was not aware of that as a fact from the general consumption numismatic articles on the MTT that I have read. The issue regarding the uncertainty of the Guzenburg mint dies is what I believed was state of the art for the other mints as well. I was not aware of the fact that the die tools were also destroyed.

This is a key reason why requiring 100% up-to-date and in depth technical knowledge is not considered essential for ebay or the average ANA member dealer under the rules. No one can retain more that a "general" level of knowledge on a great range of issues.

I am a specialist in counterfeiting and in the production of a limited number of series of coins. I think of myself as highly knowledgeable but within a very limited area. We all need to know our own limits and when we venture over the border we need to exercise increased caution. We should also not impose our own precision on the "general" community. We can and should express it, but moving the average is difficult.

Your precision in saying that the word "original" should not be used for any but a certain few dies is correct at your level of knowledge. However, at the same time it is not something that ebay rules would insist upon before allowing an auction to continue - especially when a fairly "correct" description of the coin has been supplied.

I think we have to go back to the start - the ANA rule which provides for a limitation on required precision. I am referring the "except clause" once again.




If an item is "generally accepted by numismatists" and is not "misrepresented" - it is fine. That is what I see here.

You are absolutely correct from your standpoint of precision but that standard is not general.

Using your approach it is also wrong to call 99.99...% of MTTs restrikes - because they were not struck with the original dies. That would never fly in the general community of dealers and collectors.

What ebay and the ANA seek to limit is FRAUD or situations where one party is held at a intentional disadvantage based on a fraudulent misrepresentation. That simply does not apply in this case.

austrokiwi Allowing a dealer to uses general consensus levels of expertise in selling a coin is absolutely permissible in some areas. Perfection in terms of description is not the standard.

Allowing an auction to remain on a venue like ebay is a totally different issue than whether or not a description is technically correct from the standpoint of advanced numismatics. You started the discussion with your inquiry about the appropriate classification of a coin and whether or not that posting violated ebay and ANA rules.

From the outset I have been attempting to discuss the issue from the standpoint of ebay or the average ANA dealer. Now you are moving the discussion to a different arena.

You indicate:




I am saying it is perfectly within the rules of the ANA or ebay for the posting to refer to the coin as an "original" because the actual production dates and Hafner number were supplied. That is a correct classification.

The statement I underlined in your quote is information that does NOT enter into any decision under the rules. You are assuming the seller has such a knowledge but proving it beyond any doubt is difficult and outside the scope of the rules being enforced. You are now defining fraud. That is a different charge.

I do not agree there is any logic in the conclusion you then draw that it is "perfectly OK to call a fake authentic". I never implied that. I said it was a generally accepted position that MTTs are divisible into two or three groups and that the use of original along with a Halfner variety is acceptable practice. Calling a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit Spanish Dollar authentic would be incorrect. From my position it is also incorrect to call it a "FAKE". Terms such as authentic and fake are technically imprecise usages and it is the context - the rest of the description contents that makes them right or wrong.

As I have said before - you are completely correct in your factual position regarding which die strikes are "originals" but that level of precision is not the standard employed by either ebay or the ANA. Using that level of precision (requiring no errors or misunderstandings or typos at all) I doubt half the auctions could survive.

As we have seen recently even TPGs get attributions incorrect by authenticating counterfeit coins. It is the buyer who has the obligation to protect himself. "Let the buyer beware" is an operative standard. This applies to the ANA or ebay - there is no guarantee made by either party that a description is PERFECT only honestly portrayed.

Anyone collecting at your level of expertise has already gathered the information needed to protect himself from fraud. But does the ANA rule force all dealers or sellers to have your level of expertise before selling a coin?

Remember no buyer is constrained to buy from any ANA dealer and DUE DILIGENCE is absolutely required when buying coins. In the case of an ANA dealer the opportunity to examine a coin in person trumps all verbal descriptions. A clear accurate photograph of both sides and the edge is enough to put the buyer on notice when buying on ebay.

The auction you asked about first is accurate to a level where due diligence should take over. Original means an early restrike because dates of production are stated. That is very clear and missing those facts is a buyer error.

You also ask me to review three auctions and ask:




The technical numismatics are incorrect on all three auctions for different reasons, but only two have an error that rises to a level of deception significant to warrant action by ebay or the ANA under current rules. The second and third examples are actually "Modern Restrikes" under the general consensus approach. Those two should be not be allowed or described as Originals. If reported to ebay I would expect those two auctions to be terminated. The Milan issue (the first) is not, to my knowledge, a Modern Restrike as defined by general usage. This becomes a gray area where some discretion is called for. This is precisely the type of auction that I would see as allowable under the general consensus approach.

The second auction is clearly and intentionally deceptive and would in my view rise to a level where suspension of the seller might be warranted.

You pointed out in the third auction the wording NOT A MODERN AUSTRIAN RESTRIKE. That wording would actually tip the scale toward removal and sanction because it implies the seller may know that the coin is a modern restrike from another mint facility.

I think where we differ is not in the technically correct answer - we differ in how far you must take the level of expertise in order to sell a coin without violating ANA or ebay rules.

That is a form of poetic justice that I can appreciate. I have run into many sellers trying to palm off what they thought was a worthless coin only to discover later that the coin was a rare contemporary counterfeit.

Numismat That used to happen a lot 10 years ago when the average CCC sold for $5. Not often lately.

austrokiwi If you check now that auction is gone. I saw it and recognized the direct lift from the coinworldtv description from this thread so I recommended termination.

That was a CLEAR fraudulent description that warranted immediate action.